I read about half the article before the writer's whining became too much. But I do agree. Enough of the same people over and over, and yuck, RI. You'd think there are thousands of people who would want to play Survivor, and out of those, they can't find 20 odd people to play? My theory is, it's cheaper to bring back old timers because they can save money on auditioning people. they call 50 or so former Survivors and then get 20 to come back (or in this case they bring their "loved ones" for half the cast).

One thing that struck me regarding Colton coming back. In light of the overt bigotry, etc. on Big Brother this season, I wonder if Colton would have been invited back.

I think the writer pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'll give it three episodes before deciding to cancel SP or not. It will be a shame leaving as I have not missed an episode.

I read about half the article before the writer's whining became too much. But I do agree. Enough of the same people over and over, and yuck, RI. You'd think there are thousands of people who would want to play Survivor, and out of those, they can't find 20 odd people to play? My theory is, it's cheaper to bring back old timers because they can save money on auditioning people. they call 50 or so former Survivors and then get 20 to come back (or in this case they bring their "loved ones" for half the cast).

They can find 20 people to play - the question is, can they find 20 people that enough Survivor fans feel are worth watching? The show may have reached the point where either you're a fan of the show or you're not, and nothing new is going to make the non-fans watch, so they have to keep the current fans interested - and how better to do that than to bring back former contestants that they know will draw interest?

I'm currently watching season 2 (still into it, so no spoilers, please!) and while I'm enjoying it very much, I think I prefer the later seasons. This season is a lot about the hunger, too much so, imo. There is very little on-air strategy discussion compared to the later seasons I've seen. (Who feels like scheming when you're starving?) The challenges don't seem as intricate or clever or as interesting and of course there's no HII. I like the HII, I think it adds a "wild-card" kind of element to the game.

These earlier seasons were certainly a stripped down, bare-bones version of game play, which has its appeal, but overall I think I prefer the later seasons, where there are more bells and whistles making the game play a bit more complicated.

It was interesting that Richard Hatch was awarded the cash on the island in S01, and then they held the reunion with awful Bryant Gumbel hosting. That's how Hatch got in trouble with the IRS, by attempting to hide his $1m earnings despite having it broadcast to the world.

__________________To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They can find 20 people to play - the question is, can they find 20 people that enough Survivor fans feel are worth watching? The show may have reached the point where either you're a fan of the show or you're not, and nothing new is going to make the non-fans watch, so they have to keep the current fans interested - and how better to do that than to bring back former contestants that they know will draw interest?

Someone would have to show me the ratings, but do these "All-Star" recasts (and I use the term loosely, most of these All-Stars sucked at the game), actually bring in better ratings?

The problem I have, is I take it too seriously that it's a game, played on the up and up, and not a vehicle for entertainment where the game really doesn't matter. I watch to see the game being played out, and I can as easily see this with newcomers as I can with retreads. To me, they have made the game secondary to the personalities and the gimmicks, and it loses what made it fun for me. But I guess I'm in the minority.